Solid-state electroabsorption is demonstrated as a powerful tool for probing the charge transfer (CT) character and state mixing in the low-energy optical transitions of two structurally similar thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) materials with divergent photophysical and device performances. The Liptay model is used to fit differentials of the low-energy absorption bands to the measured electroabsorption spectra, with both emitters showing CT characteristics and large changes in dipole moments upon excitation despite the associated absorption bands appearing to be structured. High electric fields then reveal transfer of oscillator strength to a state close to the CT in the better performing molecule. With supporting TDDFT-TDA and DFT/MRCI calculations, this state showed ππ* characteristics of a local acceptor triplet that strongly mixes with the σπ* of the CT. The emitter with poor TADF performance showed no evidence of such mixing.
Solid-state electroabsorption is demonstrated as a powerful tool for probing the charge transfer (CT) character and state mixing in the low-energy optical transitions of two structurally similar thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) materials with divergent photophysical and device performances. The Liptay model is used to fit differentials of the low-energy absorption bands to the measured electroabsorption spectra, with both emitters showing CT characteristics and large changes in dipole moments upon excitation despite the associated absorption bands appearing to be structured. High electric fields then reveal transfer of oscillator strength to a state close to the CT in the better performing molecule. With supporting TDDFT-TDA and DFT/MRCI calculations, this state showed ππ* characteristics of a local acceptor triplet that strongly mixes with the σπ* of the CT. The emitter with poor TADF performance showed no evidence of such mixing.
The past
few years have seen
a great increase in the amount of fundamental and applied research
that aimed to exploit thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF)
molecules for high-efficiency organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs).[1−3] Via the TADF mechanism, very small singlet–triplet energy
gaps (ΔEST) and vibrational coupling-driven
spin–orbit coupling allow the low-energy nonemissive triplet
excited states to be up-converted into emissive singlets by reverse
intersystem crossing (rISC). This triplet harvesting results in maximum
internal quantum efficiencies of ≤100% and external quantum
efficiencies as high as 30% in devices, therefore surpassing the limits
imposed by spin statistics.[4]One
common design approach for TADF emitters is the linking of
electron-donating (D) with electron-accepting (A) units in various
combinations (D–A, D–A–D, etc.),[4−7] through a N–C bridging bond between D and A. In these systems,
the D and A units then tend to orient perpendicular to one another
to decrease the steric energy. This induces a spatial separation of
the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital (LUMO). Upon photoexcitation, this leads to the
formation of charge transfer singlet (1CT) states with
minimal ΔEST. Works by Monkman et
al. and Penfold et al. have demonstrated that while spin–orbit
coupling between 1CT and the CT triplet (3CT)
state is forbidden, vibronic coupling between 3CT and a
local excited triplet (3LE, either D or A) state can mediate
the spin flip back to 1CT.[8,9] Marian et al.
have also demonstrated that a Frenkel exciton, or an excited local
triplet state with a ππ* character, mediates the transition
to the CT state with nπ* or σπ* character.[10,11] Gaining a better understanding of the precise nature of the electronic
excited states and their mutual interactions in TADF systems can thus
reveal inherent phenomena and design rules that may not be otherwise
evident. Most spectroscopic characterization techniques are limited
to investigating direct optically allowed transitions. To probe forbidden
transitions and excited-state interactions, however, we rely almost
exclusively on sophisticated theoretical modeling and calculations.
In contrast, electroabsorption (EA) spectroscopy provides direct information
about the character of relevant excited states and their interactions
in a simple and relatively inexpensive manner.[12−15] On the basis of the Stark effect,
EA measures changes in absorption caused by a perturbing external
electric field, in particular peak shifts and line shape changes.
Because it is an optical absorption technique (strictly third-order
nonlinear susceptibility), only instantaneous changes are determined.
This means that all excited-state effects, such as relaxation after
excitation through interactions with a polar host environment, can
be avoided as they have a response time of many nanoseconds after
photogeneration of the excited state. Electrofluorescence (EF) measurements
on the other hand, could provide information about the tuning effect
of the CT states with the polarity of the host chosen for measurements,
especially if time-resolved EF could be achieved, adding an extra
degree of complexity to sample production, data collection, and interpretation.
In this sense, the EA measurement is simple and free of complications
associated with such excited-state relaxation processes and is the
basis for this initial study.[8] In this
sense, moreover, these changes in absorption allow determination of
parameters such as the change in the electric dipole moment (Δμ)
and polarizability Δα upon excitation caused by the perturbing
field, as well as the character of the excited states formed on optical
transitions. Details about the calculation of these parameters are
presented in section S1 of the Supporting Information. EA therefore becomes particularly interesting for determining the
origin of different types of excitons (such as Frenkel or CT) in TADF.[16,17]In this study, we have measured the solid-state EA spectra
of two
D–A–D materials with a common dibenzo[a,j]phenazine (DBPHZ) A core and either phenoxazine (POZ) or tert-butyl-carbazole (t-BuCZ) D units.
POZ-DBPHZ (Figure a) was previously found to give good TADF and device performances
(maximum ηext of 16% in the orange)[18] as well as complex mechanochromic properties.[19,20] In contrast, t-BuCZ-DBPHZ (Figure b) has much weaker TADF and OLED performance,
∼8%. This pair of emitters was therefore chosen due to their
similar structures (sharing the same acceptor core) yet distinct TADF
properties. Legaspi et al. report both EA and EF for two TADF molecules
in a (frozen) solvent observing strong charge transfer character on
the red edge of the absorption band and higher local transitions.
A field-dependent contribution to EA was observed in one molecule
and suggested that potential mixing of the lowest-lying absorption
bands with neighboring states without connecting it to their TADF
performance.[16] In this study, however,
we use EA in the solid state to understand further how the differences
in molecular structure, energy levels, and state mixing lead to divergent
TADF and device performances in two TADF molecules with a common acceptor
core. We analyze in detail the low-energy absorption bands of both
and confirm their high dipole moment by fitting the zeroth, first,
and second differentials of the their absorption spectra to the EA
spectra in a typical Liptay analysis.[21] Both materials show very strong second-order features at the onset
of absorption, indicative of CT transitions. In POZ-DBPHZ, we discover—through
transfer of oscillator strength and supported by TDDFT-TDA and DFT/MRCI
calculations and time-resolved spectroscopy measurements—a
state lying close in energy to the CT state with a local character
(Frenkel exciton). We propose that this provides direct evidence of
a mixed ππ* triplet local state with a strong σπ*
CT transition in POZ-DBPHZ and is a strong indicator of TADF efficiency.
In contrast, t-BuCZ-DBPHZ does not show such mixing,
which correlates with it being a much weaker TADF material.
Figure 1
Electroabsorption
(EA) spectroscopy of two structurally similar
emitters with diverging TADF properties: (a) POZ-DBPHZ and (b) t-BuCZ-DBPHZ. The absorption coefficients are shown in panels
c and d for each emitter and overlapped with the absorption of the
DBPHZ core (red dashed line), POZ (blue dotted–dashed line),
and Carbazole (Cz, green dotted–dotted–dashed line).
Finally, the EA spectra at (e) 95 V and (f) 70 V are also shown. It
is worth mentioning the difference in scales as they are different
between the two materials. Measurements collected in emitter-in-zeonex
blends with a layer thickness of 2.3 μm, determined with a profilometer.
Electroabsorption
(EA) spectroscopy of two structurally similar
emitters with diverging TADF properties: (a) POZ-DBPHZ and (b) t-BuCZ-DBPHZ. The absorption coefficients are shown in panels
c and d for each emitter and overlapped with the absorption of the
DBPHZ core (red dashed line), POZ (blue dotted–dashed line),
and Carbazole (Cz, green dotted–dotted–dashed line).
Finally, the EA spectra at (e) 95 V and (f) 70 V are also shown. It
is worth mentioning the difference in scales as they are different
between the two materials. Measurements collected in emitter-in-zeonex
blends with a layer thickness of 2.3 μm, determined with a profilometer.As is common in intramolecular
CT molecules, the absorption spectrum
is a superposition of D and A unit absorption indicating the effective
electronic decoupling required for charge transfer.[22] Therefore, in the absorption of POZ-DBPHZ (Figure c), we attribute the peaks
above 4 eV and between 2.9 and 3.5 eV to the ππ* absorptions
observed in the pure dibenzo[a,j]phenazine A along
with a slight contribution from the ππ* absorption of
the phenoxazine D between 3.5 and 4 eV. At low energies, in POZ-DBPHZ
we observe the appearance of an extra band, with a Gaussian line shape,
which we assign to a direct CT absorption band, typical of D–A–D
systems.[3,6,23]In POZ-DBPHZ,
X-ray crystal structures[18] show the D–A
dihedral angles are very close to 90° in
the ground state, whereas in t-BuCZ-DBPHZ, the angles
are around 60°, very typical of carbazole donors.[24] This will result in an increased level of π
delocalization across the D–A bond, and therefore, the lowest-energy
transition in t-BuCZ-DBPHZ (Figure d) should therefore have far more local exciton
character[25] and hence an oscillator strength
greater than that of the CT transition in POZ-DBPHZ. This transition
does indeed appear more like the DBPHZ acceptor absorption with a
weak CT character rather than a wholly new, direct CT absorption feature.
We also note that with carbazole, the nonbonding n electrons delocalize
into the carbazole ring, potentially limiting the formation of a direct
CT transition below the DBPHZ absorption. In POZ-DBPHZ, the A absorption
is not shifted (Figure a) and peaks at 3 eV just as the pure DBPHZ does, but we also observe
a strong new direct CT transition below this. In t-BuCZ-DBPHZ (Figure b), the conjugated DBPHZ band red-shifts and sits above any weak
direct CT absorption that might be present.The EA spectra of
both POZ-DBPHZ and t-BuCZ-DBPHZ
are also shown in panels e and f of Figure , respectively. The spectra are characterized
by high-intensity and low-energy EA bands and high-energy bands that
we suspect originate in the D and A. At higher energies, the spectra
are complex and cannot be described well using Liptay analysis,[21] which assumes a series of non-interacting excited
states (and their associated transitions) and cannot take into consideration
optically forbidden states that do not feature in the absorption spectrum.
As a result, a simple Liptay model assuming separate D and A responses
cannot reproduce the entire spectrum. As one can see in Figure , the full EA spectrum of POZ-DBPHZ
is far more complex than that of t-BuCZ-DBPHZ, and
evidence of strong state mixing and transfer of oscillator strength
across the whole ππ* spectral region can be seen. A more
comprehensive sum-over-states model may be able to describe this high-energy
region,[26] but fitting such complex spectra
was deemed beyond the scope of this initial study.As the performance
of TADF materials is determined by the behavior
of the low-lying CT states,[2] we focus our
analysis on the low-energy absorption bands that can be fitted well
by the Liptay model. These bands are overlapped with the EA bands
and show a general red-shift, which is more pronounced in POZ-DBPHZ
(Figure S1). As described in Methods, the absorption bands of both molecules below 3.2
eV were reconstructed with a set of Gaussian components as shown in Figure S2 to obtain smooth, noise free derivatives
following numerical differentiation. Using the analytic derivatives
of the fitted Gaussians, the first and second differentials of the
low-energy absorption spectra were then calculated (insets of Figure ). Least-squares
fitting using zeroth, first, and second differential components allows
the EA spectra to be fitted using eq 2 from section S1 of the Supporting Information, and the results are shown
in Figure .
Figure 2
Low-energy
electroabsorption band (solid black line) spectra of
(a) POZ-DBPHZ and (b) t-BuCZ-DBPHZ overlapped with
the fitting (dashed red line). For comparison, the insets of both
figures show the first and second derivatives of the lowest-energy
absorption bands calculated from the Gaussian reconstruction (Figure S2).[27]
Low-energy
electroabsorption band (solid black line) spectra of
(a) POZ-DBPHZ and (b) t-BuCZ-DBPHZ overlapped with
the fitting (dashed red line). For comparison, the insets of both
figures show the first and second derivatives of the lowest-energy
absorption bands calculated from the Gaussian reconstruction (Figure S2).[27]At first glance, the EA spectra
of both POZ-DBPHZ (a) and t-BuCZ-DBPHZ (b) are dominated
by second-derivative contributions,
revealing strong CT character in the lowest-energy absorption bands
in both. POZ-DBPHZ (Figure a) cannot be fit entirely well (particularly in the region
above 2.45 eV), suggesting additional contributions from other states
that overlap with the main CT electroabsorption band. The t-BuCZ-DBPHZ EA spectrum in comparison is reproduced very
well and is almost a pure second-order response showing that, contrary
to what we first assumed, this transition is indeed CT in origin with
high LE character (Figure b). A CT transition with greater LE character also possesses
a higher oscillator strength, which explains how t-BuCZ-DBPHZ has a signal-to-noise ratio that is ∼3 times higher
than that of POZ-DBPHZ at a lower applied field (304 kV/cm vs 413
kV/cm).In POZ-DBPHZ, via examination of the fit residuals,
a new feature
is revealed at around 2.45 eV, shown in Figure a.[28] The perturbing
electric field causes coupling of a dark state to an allowed transition,
leading to the transfer of oscillator strength.[29] A derivative-like feature with strong first-order differential
character is observed, spanning 2.35 and 2.6 eV and centered around
2.49 eV. We assign this non-Liptay new feature to the triplet exciton
located on the acceptor that becomes optically allowed through coupling
to the CT singlet state and confirmed by the measured phosphorescence
spectrum of the DBPHZ core (Figure b), from which an onset energy of 2.40 eV is obtained.
This energy matches well that observed in the EA spectrum and is substantially
removed from the lowest singlet states lying on either the donor or
the acceptor units, all of which lie above 3 eV. These observations
are further confirmed by the DFT/MRCI calculations described in detail
in the section S2 of the Supporting Information. In POZ-DBPHZ, the lowest-energy optical transitions for the full
molecule (11B1 and 11A2) both have pure CT character with calculated adiabatic transition
energies of 2.29 eV, in excellent agreement with the measured onset
of optical absorption (Figure ). The lowest singlet local transitions (of the acceptor)
are calculated at 2.95 and 3.22 eV, strongly separated from the CT
transitions. The triplet state mentioned above is calculated to be
a local 13B1 triplet state of ππ*
character, localized on the acceptor. With a calculated energy of
2.32 eV, this is in close agreement with the values observed in the
EA and phosphorescence measurements (Table S3).
Figure 3
(a) Difference between the raw and fitted EA spectrum of POZ-DBPHZ
in a zeonex matrix. The inset shows a theoretical diagram of the state
mixing between 1CT and 3LE that results in the
transfer of oscillator strength to the 3LE state, thus
allowing the state to be probed by EA measurements. (b) Normalized
phosphorescence spectrum of DBPHZ (molecular structure shown in the
inset) obtained with time-resolved measurements in a blend of 1% (w:w)
DBPHZ in zeonex and a time delay above 25 ms. Onset measurement gives
a state energy of 2.40 ± 0.02 eV.
(a) Difference between the raw and fitted EA spectrum of POZ-DBPHZ
in a zeonex matrix. The inset shows a theoretical diagram of the state
mixing between 1CT and 3LE that results in the
transfer of oscillator strength to the 3LE state, thus
allowing the state to be probed by EA measurements. (b) Normalized
phosphorescence spectrum of DBPHZ (molecular structure shown in the
inset) obtained with time-resolved measurements in a blend of 1% (w:w)
DBPHZ in zeonex and a time delay above 25 ms. Onset measurement gives
a state energy of 2.40 ± 0.02 eV.The first-order line shape of the EA associated with this
underlying
transition, centered at 2.45 eV, must be a Frenkel excitonic state
on a single unit spectrally overlapping with the CT feature in the
EA spectrum. Previous solvatochromism measurements[18] have shown that the CT transition has strong mixed nπ*/ππ*
character, and the applied field allows this mixing to become measurable.
While direct excitation to this state is forbidden, the transition
becomes visible in the EA spectrum through the transfer of oscillator
strength. This is also in agreement with El-Sayed’s rule, which
states that an S(ππ*) state couples strongly with a T(nπ*)
or T(σπ*) state and vice versa.[30] In essence, spin–orbit coupling is expected to be strong
if the p orbital at an atomic center changes its orientation upon
excitation. The different densities of the CT states (Figure ) reveal small local σπ*-type
contributions to the CT excitations that may couple to the ππ*-type
excitations of the T3(ππ*) state on the same
center. The computed spin–orbit coupling matrix element between
the energetically close-lying S1(CT) and T3(ππ*)
states (0.279 cm–1) is ∼50 times stronger
than the direct symmetry-allowed coupling between S1(CT)
and T2(CT). The effects of such state mixing have been
discussed in detail by Marian et al. and strongly influence the TADF
mechanism[11] but on their own are still
orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed experimental
rISC rates, which require the vibronic coupling mechanism to achieve
rISC rates approaching 107 s–1.[4] Thus, EA gives experimental verification that
the lowest-lying optical transition in POZ-DBPHZ is a pure CT transition
but one that couples (mixes) with the lowest-energy local triplet
state. Given this triplet state is ππ* in character, the
CT transition has to be (as predicted) σπ* and the mixing
of the two states yields enhanced transition oscillator strength for
the otherwise optically inaccessible state.
Figure 4
Difference densities
(|isovalue| = 0.001) of (a) the S1(CT) state and (b) the
T3(ππ*) state of POZ-DBPHZ.
A loss of electron density with respect to the ground state is colored
red, and a gain yellow. For the sake of clarity, the negative parts
of the corresponding difference densities are shown in panels c and
d, respectively.
Difference densities
(|isovalue| = 0.001) of (a) the S1(CT) state and (b) the
T3(ππ*) state of POZ-DBPHZ.
A loss of electron density with respect to the ground state is colored
red, and a gain yellow. For the sake of clarity, the negative parts
of the corresponding difference densities are shown in panels c and
d, respectively.In comparison, DFT/MRCI
calculations show that t-BuCZ-DBPHZ (also with pure
CT character) has no such triplet-state
coupling to the lowest-energy optical transition (Table S5). The lowest-energy triplet state from phosphorescence
and DFT/MRCI has an energy of ∼2.30 eV, well below the CT states
and far removed from any EA signal, so no major deviation from the
pure second-order derivative line shape is seen in the EA spectrum.
We note that though this transition in t-BuCZ-DBPHZ
seems at first glance excitonic (being sharp and well featured), EA
clearly shows that this transition is pure CT in character. We speculate
whether this is a peculiar characteristic of the carbazoledonor and
stems from the fact that the nonbonding electrons are delocalized
into the carbazole ring.In Table , we summarize
the changes in polarizability and dipole moment of these two materials,
using eqs 3 and 4 of section S1 of the Supporting Information both with and without a local field correction.
POZ-DBPHZ, having both the smallest ΔEST and the highest PLQY, also shows a large change in dipole
moment (Δμ) of 17.46 D (uncorrected). This change is indicative
of a complete one-electron transfer over a distance of 5–7
Å, which we suggest represents one electron moving from the donor
unit into the middle of the acceptor unit. Such a change in electron
density is also confirmed by DFT/MRCI calculations of the first CT
transitions (Table S3). We also see a change
in the first-order polarizability indicating the transfer of oscillator
strength to the local acceptor S0–T1 transition.
In the case of t-BuCZ-DBPHZ, the change in dipole
moment is smaller, calculated at 6.25 D. We attribute this smaller
Δμ to the smaller dihedral angle in t-BuCZ-DBPHZ and the conjugation of the donor and acceptor units to
some degree. Conjugation and associated ground-state delocalization
across the D and A units reduce the distance the electron must travel
in forming the CT state, resulting in a smaller change in dipole moment
upon excitation. Even with the weaker CT character and increased level
of D–A conjugation, t-BuCZ-DBPHZ has a smaller
PLQY. This and the large ΔEST (of
0.33 eV) result in poor TADF efficiency and give low-efficiency devices.
These properties could be a direct result of a lack of mixing of CT
and LE states in this molecule. Correcting the applied field for the
nonpolar zeonex host reduces the calculated change in dipole moment.
The resulting values seem rather unphysical for such strong charge
transfer molecules that show very large solvatochromic shifts.[16] We feel that 5% (w:w) loading of the polar TADF
molecules in zeonex may well create a polar environment and a different
local field correction factor needs to be used. However, all corrections
we have tried greatly increase the calculated change in dipole moment,
again to nonphysical values. Further studies to fully understand the
interaction of the TADF guest in a host medium need to be performed
to resolve this. EA spectroscopy is then a powerful tool for predicting
efficient TADF in materials for OLEDs, as it quickly reveals the presence
or absence of this important CT–LE mixing.
Table 1
Contributions of First and Second
Derivatives to the Fitting of the EA Spectra of POZ-DBPHZ and t-BuCZ-DBPHZa
first-derivative
contribution × 10–5
Δp × 10–38 (Dm/V)
Δp × 10–38 (Dm/V)b
second-derivative
contribution × 10–5
Δμ (D)
Δμ (D)b
POZ-DBPHZ
5.3
1.05
0.29
3.8
17.46
9.35
t-BuCZ-DBPHZ
–2.7
–0.94
–0.27
0.3
6.25
3.35
Following eqs 3 and 4, the field-induced
change in polarizability and dipole moment were calculated.
Corrected for a nonpolar environment
using a local field correction factor of F = (2ε
+ 1)Fapp/3.
Following eqs 3 and 4, the field-induced
change in polarizability and dipole moment were calculated.Corrected for a nonpolar environment
using a local field correction factor of F = (2ε
+ 1)Fapp/3.
Conclusions
. In summary, we have elucidated the
character and state mixing of the molecular excited states of two
distinct TADF materials using electroabsorption spectroscopy. We find
that the low-energy absorption bands in both have very strong CT character,
which is not obvious from the absorption line shape of t-BuCZ-DBPHZ. More importantly, in POZ-DBPHZ, the transfer of oscillator
strength reveals the presence of a second state that is overlapping
the CT band and is not found in t-BuCZ-DBPHZ that
has pure CT character. This new state in POZ-DBPHZ is identified as
the lowest-energy ππ* local triplet of the acceptor. With
support from calculations and further spectroscopic techniques, this
local triplet state is shown to mix with the σπ* CT state.
The computed spin–orbit coupling matrix element (0.279 cm–1) is ∼50 times stronger than the direct and
symmetry-allowed coupling between S1(CT) and T2(CT). This mixing gives a direct CT transition with an enhanced oscillator
strength. In t-BuCZ-DBPHZ, the lowest triplet state
is much lower in energy than the CT transition and does not mix, in
part leading to much poorer TADF efficiency. No higher-lying local
triplet states are in resonance either. This may be a peculiarity
of the carbazole donors in t-BuCZ-DBPHZ. Further
studies of this CT singlet–LE triplet coupling with quantum
chemistry approaches may well yield more details of the molecular
characteristics that result in efficient TADF molecules.
Methods
For absorption and electroabsorption (EA) measurements, samples
of ∼7 mg of POZ-DBPHZ and t-BuCZ-DBPHZ dispersed
in 1 mL of toluene with ∼143 mg of zeonex [1:20 (w:w) ratio]
were used. For EA, sapphire substrates were loaded into a Kurt J.
Lesker Spectros II vacuum thermal deposition chamber and layers of
aluminum were evaporated at a pressure of ≤10–5 mbar. After the initial evaporation of a 9 nm electrode, covering
the entire substrate, around 70 μL of the solution was spun
for 30 s and 2000 rpm using a Laurell Technologies spin-coater, resulting
in a film thickness of approximately 2.3 ± 0.1 μm, which
was confirmed by a DekTac profilometer. The samples were then reloaded
into the chamber, and a further 12 nm thick Al layer was deposited,
where only part of the substrate was evaporated, to facilitate connection
to the bottom Al layer. Electrical contacts were made using silver
paste to connect electrodes to electrical wires. For absorption, the
same solution and spin-coating parameters were used with blank sapphire
substrates. Absorption spectra were measured with a double-beam spectrophotometer
(Shimadzu UV-3600). For time-resolved measurements, toluene solutions
of DBPHZ (at a concentration of 1 mg/mL) and zeonex (at a concentration
of 130 mg/mL) were blended in a ratio of 1:1 (w:w) and drop-cast (∼90
μL) at room temperature onto similar sapphire substrates. Time-resolved
phosphorescence was collected by exciting the sample with a Nd:YAG
laser (EKSPLA, 10 Hz, 266 nm) and recorded using a Stanford Computer
Optics gated charged coupled device (CCD) with a time delay above
25 ms.EA spectra were recorded using a home-built system (Figure S9) comprising a laser-driven white light
source (Energetiq EQ-99X) focused before the sample to prevent sample
burn-in. The transmitted beam was passed through a monochromator (Bentham
TMc300) and measured with a silicon photodiode. The voltage to set
up the electric field was supplied by a Trek 10/10 voltage amplifier,
capable of amplifying the sinusoidal internal oscillator signal (f = 173 Hz) of a DSP 7225 lock-in amplifier by 1000 times.
Considering the total film thickness and applied voltage, maximum
electric fields of 413 and 304 kV/cm were used for POZ-DBPHZ and t-BuCZ-DBPHZ, respectively. We repeatedly found that higher
voltages and fields rapidly damaged the contacts, increasing the chance
of sample failure midmeasurement. The field-induced change in transmission
(ΔT) and the nominal transmission (T) were detected by the photodiode connected to the lock-in
amplifier at specific monochromator wavelengths. This in turn provided
the energy dispersion of ΔT/T.
Authors: Fernando B Dias; Konstantinos N Bourdakos; Vygintas Jankus; Kathryn C Moss; Kiran T Kamtekar; Vandana Bhalla; José Santos; Martin R Bryce; Andrew P Monkman Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 30.849
Authors: Chan Seok Oh; Daniel de Sa Pereira; Si Hyun Han; Hee-Jun Park; Heather F Higginbotham; Andrew P Monkman; Jun Yeob Lee Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Przemyslaw Data; Piotr Pander; Masato Okazaki; Youhei Takeda; Satoshi Minakata; Andrew P Monkman Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Fernando B Dias; Jose Santos; David R Graves; Przemyslaw Data; Roberto S Nobuyasu; Mark A Fox; Andrei S Batsanov; Tiago Palmeira; Mário N Berberan-Santos; Martin R Bryce; Andrew P Monkman Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 16.806
Authors: Tomas Serevičius; Rokas Skaisgiris; Jelena Dodonova; Laimis Jagintavičius; Dovydas Banevičius; Karolis Kazlauskas; Sigitas Tumkevičius; Saulius Juršėnas Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Matthias Hempe; Nadzeya A Kukhta; Andrew Danos; Andrei S Batsanov; Andrew P Monkman; Martin R Bryce Journal: J Phys Chem Lett Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 6.888